The Commoditization of Populations
December 14, 2004
by Noel Sheppard
Twenty years from now, what might the world's most precious, depleting,
natural resource be? Oil? Steel? Lumber? How about working-age adults who
are still contributing to a nation's entitlement programs rather than
receiving benefits from them?
Want to know how short the future supply of such people is? Well, across
the globe, nations like Japan, Australia, and Singapore are actually
begging their child rearing-age population to procreate. For instance,
according to the Tokyo correspondent for the BBC:
Japan currently has one of the lowest birth rates in the world.
[And] the government says that unless the trend is reversed quickly,
the shortage of children risks doing damage to the economy. The
decline in Japan's birth rate is so severe they have invented a word
for it -- 'shoshika', meaning a society without children. Unless
women here start having more babies, the population in Japan is
expected to shrink more than 20% by the middle of this century.
Nearly half would be elderly, placing impossible burdens on the health
and pension systems.
AAP reports a similar condition in Australia:
Treasurer Peter Costello has already beseeched healthy young couples
to procreate for their country, and now a report on the economic
implications of the ageing population has given his words extra
weight. Far from blaming the baby boomers for a projected doubling
in the proportion of people aged 65 years or more by 2044, the draft
Productivity Commission report has found that falling fertility is the
major culprit.
Having a bigger proportion of older people will increase the nation's
healthcare costs and diminish participation in the workforce, the report
found. The commission estimates that gross domestic product (GDP) growth
per capita could fall to 1.25 per cent per year in the 2020s - about half
its present rate - while health spending is likely to rise from six per
cent to about 10.8 per cent of GDP by 2044.
Finally, a recent Times of London article forecasts a similarly dire
situation brewing in Europe:
In 50 years there will be almost 100 million fewer people living in
Europe, according to a United Nations report. The UN's latest study
on international migration released yesterday predicts that even
if Europe gains an average of 600,000 immigrants a year, its
population will fall by 96 million by 2050. Without the new arrivals,
the decline would be even more spectacular: 139 million. Already
immigration into Europe is partly helping to offset the impact of
declining birth rates. The continent's population would have shrunk by
over four million in the final five years of the past century if it
were not for the latest wave of immigrants.
Certainly, America is not immune to this global population crisis, as we
are projected to experience a doubling of our own senior demographic in
the next 30 years from the current 40 million to likely 80 million as our
Baby Boomers retire. Which begs the question: What has the world done
wrong to get into this predicament, and what can we do to solve this
looming international catastrophe?
To begin with, in 1968, Paul Ehrlich, Charles Remington, and Richard
Bowers created a non-profit organization called "Zero Population
Growth." Its primary goal at the time was to draw attention to the
global problems associated with overpopulation, and to get American
couples to start thinking about having families with two children or less.
Without question, this concept spread throughout the industrialized world.
However, the problem is that at roughly the same time as this restrictive
procreation policy was being advocated, entitlement programs were being
expanded, and the mathematics involved in most required a continually
increasing number of workers to be paying into the system to support the
ever-growing number of retirees that would draw from it. As a result, the
concepts of ZPG were running quite contrary to the expanding socialist
structure of many governments.
Further complicating matters were the changing mores of a species that
once felt that procreation was a requirement. Paradoxically, this new
ethos not only made it socially acceptable to not have children inasmuch
as couples were helping the population "problem" by remaining childless,
but also made such a condition practically a badge of honor. As a result,
people from all walks of life in an increasing number of areas around the
world just intentionally stopped having babies.
Where does this leave us? Well, fortunately, America appears to be better
positioned for addressing this imminent disaster than most of our trading
partners. As discussed in the previously referenced London Times article:
Recent years have seen North America overtake Europe as the
preferred destination for people looking to start a new life outside
their native country. Between 1960 and 2000, the foreign-born
population in the US more than tripled from 10 million to 35 million,
with a further 8 million in Canada. Whereas four decades ago, six out
of every 100 people in North America was an international migrant,
the figure has now climbed to 13 per cent.
Given this, the solution moving forward is clearly going to be job
creation. The nations that can employ people with the highest wages and
the most desirable standards of living are going to attract skilled labor
from all over the world, while enticing their own populations to not
emigrate elsewhere. As a result, contrary to the current arguments about
American outsourcing, it is quite conceivable that the exact opposite
needs to occur in our nation over the next several decades, and is already
being fostered by a lower dollar and higher energy costs.
In fact, a recent Wall Street Journal editorial addressed this concept
called "insourcing":
Insourcing is what happens when foreign-headquartered multinationals
operate subsidiaries in the U.S. These companies contribute both to
U.S. economic growth and living standards.... Insourcing provided
jobs for more than 5.4 million U.S. workers in 2002, or nearly 5% of
total private-sector employment. These are good-paying jobs, too. The
average annual compensation at such companies was a tad over $56,000,
or some 31% more than the average annual private U.S. compensation.
To be sure, the notion of insourcing is so foreign to most Americans that
Microsoft Word doesn't identify it, and the definition at Dictionary.com
is not applicable. Regardless, Japanese and German car companies like
Honda, Toyota, Nissan, and BMW for many years have been insourcing
employees and manufacturing facilities in America to combat fluctuating
exchange rates while significantly reducing transportation costs. Even the
just announced purchase of IBM's PC unit by China's Lenovo represents
insourcing inasmuch as Lenovo will be retaining all of IBM's employees,
and moving its headquarters to New York.
The bottom line is that with the current value of the U.S. dollar, as well
as the high cost of energy, we are likely going to see more foreign
companies expanding in America to overcome such rising expenditures.
Moreover, these same variables will likely make it less attractive for
American companies to move operations overseas thereby reducing the trend
of outsourcing that has been such a political hot potato. In reality, it
is quite likely that this ancillary benefit of the dollar devaluation that
we have seen in the past three years is by no means accidental, and is
probably a pivotal component of Americaâþ@~Ys global economic strategy to
create jobs here at home.
In addition to continually expanding the number of high-paying jobs that
are available in our nation, America is going to also have to quickly come
to grips with its illegal alien problem, and realize that immigration is a
strong component to our ability to grow our workforce. As a result, the
U.S. must not make the same errors that Europe appears to be heading
towards with regard to its Muslim population. As working-age, productive
members of the society will continue to command a high premium around the
world, American immigration policy should be taking advantage of the
apparent biases that are surfacing elsewhere to once again make our nation
the preferred vocational destination of people from all parts of the
globe.
Noel Sheppard
Noel Sheppard is a business owner, economist, and writer residing in
Northern California. He receives email at slep@danvillebc.com.
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive...pard121404.htm
Re: What's wrong with HB 3773? A LOT!!! (New Online Petitions added!)
Originally Posted by mannyamador
Population density and growth, on the other hand, DO have benefits -- which you have already acknowledged and the UN Population Division has pointed out -- while greed, corruption, and misplaced national priorities do not. But you seem to be quite blind to these differences. Idiotic argument refuted. (just way too easy...)
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
